Labour and the election

The Labour leadership has been autocratic and diplomatic, a set of principles difficult to apply and a reason for doubt and confidence in international policy. Is it a set of compromising positions for the public, or a reason for doubt that the party can win over non-believers? I suggest it is radical and presupposes the question of risk and undermines consensus. This does not mean it lacks political legitimacy despite claims that it is outside more liberal conceptions of right and wrong.

The Labour election is a poor test of political principle, nevertheless its partial application shows the kinds of real world outcomes a Labour government might get into. Jeremy Corbin dominated headlines and he can be a difficult political friend. The policy and history of Labour sheltered him from this publicity and the recent backdrop of a general election was a cliff face. There was economic decline and the social division over Europe, the EU and Russia raised important deficits.

The leadership has restraining frames on the history of Europe and the policies of irresponsibility in political methods. The restraint of global politics and comments about the USA showed how Labour lacked a safe hiding place on international issues. The power of the domestic agendas needs a platfom and ideology about change, the role of the state as new and the democracy as developing beyond first deductions.

Nevertheless for a radical agenda the policy had vitality, if not acceptance and the positions were democratic, not winner takes all. The sincerity of the politics is not in doubt, nor the realism. This is not the media show however and issues like the state require a following not a cliff fall. The purpose is growth and solutions, and the democracy is known beyond the elite. I suggest it was a brave attempt that simply is becoming a strategic nightmare.